Ethical issues

This should be read in conjunction with the policies, guidelines and instructions set-out for the authors, editors, reviewers and referees. This policy applies to the NanoTrends in particular and other relevant publications of the NSTC, and, any other titles published with a partner organization in general.
  • While determining the authorship, the prime principle is to look for the person (s) who is the creator of thought/ embodied idea (conception, design, execution, or analysis and interpretation of data). Authors should ensure that all those who have made significant contributions are given the opportunity to be graded as authors. Authors should be practically involved in drafting the article, its revision and appraisal. Other individuals who have also contributed to the study should be duly acknowledged.

  • Manuscripts should include a full list of the current institutional affiliations of all authors, both academic and corporate.

  • The order in the authorship has to be a joint decision of all the participating authors.

  • Some co-authors will be accountable for the entire article, for instance those who provide critical data, write the manuscript, or provide leadership to the junior fellows. Other co-authors may be responsible for some specific contributions to a paper.

  • All authors should have access to final version of the submitted manuscript, agree to its submission and take appropriate responsibility for it. Any individual unwilling or unable to accept appropriate responsibility for a manuscript shall not be held as a co-author.

  • Referees/ editors should contact the relevant editor (s) and/ or the NanoTrends’ Publication Management Team, to intimate any conflict of interest in advance of reviewing/ refereeing an article (e.g. being a joint author or collaborator with one of the authors). It is implied that an editor/ referee will not review/ referee a manuscript that is authored by himself/ herself.

  • It is unethical to publish articles describing essentially the same studies or results in more than one primary research journal. Submitting the same article to more than one journal in parallel is unethical and unacceptable.

  • Submission of manuscript to the NanoTrends for its consideration of publication, implies that the manuscript is fee from any kind of conflicts/ irregularities including those discussed above.

  • Authors/ contributors have to refrain from using a language style that does not match with the professional ethics of the scientific/ technical journal.

  • Authors/ contributors should not consider the NanoTrends as a medium for marketing/ publicity of any product or service of their interests.

  • Authors/ contributors must not manipulate, falsify or misrepresent data or the findings.

  • Authors/ Contributors must be honest in making claims for the results and conclusions of their research.

  • Authors should their utmost efforts to avoid errors in research and exercise due caution in presenting work for publication.

  • Source material of experiments and research results should be recorded and preserved in a manner that permits verification maintaining an audit trail by other scientists. In certain cases exceptions may be appropriate to preserve privacy or patent protection Referencing .

  • Authors should acknowledge the work of others, that has been used or that has provided support/ inspiration in their research and cite publications that have influenced the direction and course of their study.

  • Information gathered in private correspondence or conversation should only be used with the explicit permission of the individuals involved.

  • Information collected while providing confidential services, such as refereeing research articles etc. should not be used without the permission of the original author.

Handling cases of misconduct
  • No journal is competent to police such cases. We believe that employers have the prime responsibility for ensuring their researcher’s conduct and the ethical training.

  • NanoTrends, like other journals, do not have the resources or legal legitimacy to investigate scientific misconduct.

  • However, Publication Management Team of the NanoTrends, may seek advice/ information from a concerned referee or editorial board member, in case it is comes/ brought to its notice, an evidence that trust has been significantly compromised by an author’s or referee’s actions.

  • We may attempt to redress the matter by appropriate corrections in the NanoTrends and if deemed fit may communicate (as per NanoTrends norms) to the employers or funding agencies.

(In cases where aforesaid instructions are found inadequate, NanoTrends envisages seeking of support from/ recommends use of, the relevant guidelines as stipulated by the Council of Science Editors (CSE). NanoTrends acknowledges the informational support derived from the directions/ guidelines set- in by the CSE, in writing these instructions).